KATAGUM & ORS V. ROBERTS

• Pages: 143-148

KATAGUM & ORS V. ROBERTS



143

KATAGUM & ORS V. ROBERTS

5

ALHAJI SULE KATAGUM AND OTHERS



APPELLANTS

(constituting the Police Service

10 Commission)

V.

M.E.K. ROBERTS



RESPONDENT

SUIT NO. SC 749/1966

SUPREME COURT OF NIGERIA

15



BRETT,



Ag. C.J.N.

BAIRAMIAN,J.S.C.

COKER,J.S.C.

28th April, 1967

20



Administrative Law - Public Officers - Power tinder Pensions Act to retire a

public officer who has attained !he age of forty-five years - Not a disciplinary

measure

Civil Action - Practice and Procedure - Motion to dismiss suit summarily as

25



disclosing no cause of action -- Facts pleaded in statement of claim to be

taken as true.

Legislation - Pensions Act (Cap.147) Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Constitution of

the Federation, 1963, Sections 1, 109, 110(1) and 156, High Court of Lagos

30



(Civil Procedure) Rules, Order 28.

ISSUES:

1.

Whether action under section 9(1) of the Pensions Act is equivalent to a

dismissal and whether the power requiring a police officer to retire from the

35



Public Service under the subsection is concerned with disciplinary control.

2.

Whether in a motion under Order 28 of the High Court Rules the court is under

a duty to assume that the facts pleaded in the Statement of Claim are true.

FACTS:

The respondent was at all material times the Deputy Inspector General of Police

40



and the appellants were the chairman and members of the Police Service Com-

mission established by section 109 of the Constitution.

Following correspondences between the respondent and the Police Service

Commission concerning allegations of misconduct made against the respondent,

the Commission served him with 6 months notice of intention to retire him from

45



the service under section 9(1) of the Pensions Act. The appellant took out a writ

against the Attorney-General of the Federation and the Police Service Commission

for a declaration that the notice was illegal and

ultra-vires,

pleading,

inter alia

that

he had not been given full opportunity to be heard. He later obtained leave to sub-

stitute the three appellants by name for the commission.

50



The appellants brought a motion under Order 28 of the High Court of Lagos

(Civil Procedure) Rules to dismiss the suit summarily for want of jurisdiction and

for failure to disclose a cause of action. The High Court refused to dismiss the

suit and the appellants appealed against the refusal.